View allAll Photos Tagged answer
Save a Life, Surrender your Knife.
Increase The Peace, Keep Knives Off The Street.
Cowards Carry Knives.
Project Zao
#DropTheKnifeSaveALife
---
It truly is a magnificent sculpture which, if you get the chance, to see it for yourself. The vision and workmanship is outstanding. It's incredible from any angle. The up-lighting is delightful, although I only managed to see this effect for a few moments.
-
My YouTube Video: Knife Angel. Derby Cathedral. Oct 2019
-
---
Rachel Webb, whose son Tom was 22 years old when he was stabbed and killed in St Peter's Street, Derby, by a 16 year old boy in January 2016, has been instrumental in bringing the Angel to Derby. She supported a knife surrender held across Derbyshire and knives from this were donated towards the creation of this sculpture.
The knife Angel has been created as a National monument against violence and aggression at the British Ironworks Centre in Oswestry and is a memorial to those whose lives have been affected by knife crime. It is a 27ft high sculpture, which Alfie Bradley has designed and created single-handedly using over 100,000 knives surrendered and collected in nationwide amnesties in 2015/2016. The angel began it's tour around the UK in 2018 when it was housed outside of Liverpool Cathedral for December and January in order to raise awareness of the impact of knife crime on society, the victims and their families and friends.
It is currently on a city tour of the UK.
Knife crime is rising across the country. The Knife Angel's presence in derby is very much a symbol of the hard work of partners and communities across Derbyshire to halt this rise.
Derbyshire Police are spearheading a multi agency campaign called Project Zao, which aims to prevent causalities and stop venerable youngsters from seeing violence as the answer. It targets those who carry knives and delivers a hard hitting educational package to thousands of young people across the county.
All 43 national police forces, the Home Office, anti-violence groups across the UK and hundreds of families who have been affected by knife crime are all strongly supporting the Knife Angel. Relatives of those killed by knife crime were invited to engrave the blades with names and messages for their loved ones as part of the sculpture.
The Knife Angel is a symbol of defiance and change, shining a spotlight on Britain's knife crime problem and its impact on communities, families and individuals.
The Angel; is helping to raise awareness of violent crime and helping young people understand the reasons not to carry knives.
Please show your support and join us in standing up to knife crime!
Seeking answers to that nagging question, “How were these enormous canyons formed?”, I have at last found evidence to support my long-held hypothesis! Judging by the teeth marks, it is quite obvious that colossal groundhogs chewed their way through solid rock, creating the deep canyons found around the Southwest.
This opinion will likely be lambasted by the scientific community as yet another kooky theory voiced by an amateur knucklehead scientist, but, I ask you, what other conclusion is possible?!
My next step is to search for the culprit, Marmota monaximus.
This photo was taken by a Hasselblad 500C medium format film camera with a Carl Zeiss Planar 1:2.8 f=80mm lens and Zenza Bronica 67mm SY48•2C(Y2) filter using Kodak 400TX film, the negative scanned by an Epson Perfection V600 and digitally rendered with Photoshop.
For me a photograph is most successful when it doesn't answer all the questions and it leaves something to be desired. I like each picture that I take to be a testament to the individual character of my subject.
～ Greg Gorman - Vision - Lowepro 2004/2005, page 65
If you are interested in my works, they are available on Getty Images and Adobe Stock; prints on Photos.
P.S. Non-HDR-processed / Non-GND-filtered ● Black Card Technique 黑卡作品
229/365
No reproduction of this image is allowed without prior permission of the photographer. Ninguna reproducción de esta imagen está permitida sin el previo permiso del fotógrafo.
© PaolaSuárez
All rights reserved
Todos los derechos reservados
Even though water hyacinth is a rampant invasive, it sometimes makes for a good subject in the low angled sunlight of evening.
The little Gosling closest to its momma asked, “Who do you like the most momma?” All ears perked up to hear what Momma Goose would answer, while the little Gosling farthest away from the group already felt left out.
Don't you hate it, when you are about to sit down for supper. The door bell rings, you answer it, and its your super friendly local JKPP group ladies.
From last evening's memory or was it just a weird dream?
Original photo of Maureen and Julia here
acrylic, watercolours, digital fonts
354/365 Work with textures
I borrowed this image from my friend Philip Dunn an extraordinary and super talented photographer. Thank you so much Philip for your generosity !!
A work in progress: Phiddy1's Birds in texture
..........................................................................................................................................................................
Rearrange, boy, make yourself strong
You're not the first or last who's lost everything
.
You know we all live for once
Using is a part of living your life
Daylight always follows the night
Looking at life as it's always been
It will be that way here
'Til the world ends
(...)
Black-capped chickadee
by Francis Stella
A friend of mine, a friend to all,
We named him for his cheerful call
And the handsome little cap of coal
He wears on neighborhood patrol.
And when I’m in his woods he’ll fly
To some low branch I happen by,
Though if he were just somewhat bolder
I think he’d light upon my shoulder.
He offers me a friendly greeting
Then hops about throughout our meeting;
In his white and gray and sable
That tiny bird is always able
To raise my spirits when I’m low
And force my hurried step to slow.
And on the topic of the day
There’s so much that he comes to say!
Though what that topic really is—
Well, the topic’s only ever his;
For though I’d like to say I heard
Something from this little bird,
I’ve yet to understand a word,
And I really would agree
With those who’d shared his company
And aptly named him chickadee.
A friend of mine, a friend from youth,
But friend as well to fact and truth,
For when I’m passing by his wood
And ask if she is gone for good,
Ask if she’ll come back to me,
I hear him answer, plaintively:
No, never.
No, never.
..........................................................................................................................................................................
Texture with my deepest gratitude to: Playingwithbrushes: Softness Hardness Thank you Renee!
and
SkeletalMess: SomeWould2 Thanks a lot Jerry!!
..........................................................................................................................................................................
Please do not send any invitations at this time. I'm so far behind that I'm going need a month of Flickr time to update all my invitations and that would be when I finish my project. I appreciate your personal comments though. I'm going to quote this phrase from a dear friend of mine "Do not add your picture or Flickr river link with your comment, it will be removed"
.../
Some things feel like they take forever when they really come faster than we realize. He asked, she said yes.. well, she said 'Holy biscuits.' For her, that means yes.
Suretta Lisker
INTJ, 63, Professional Extrovert, ASD, ADHD MentorAuthor has 14.9K answers and 28M answer views9y
Originally Answered: Do you agree with the statement that "what you see in other people is a reflection of yourself"? Why and why not?
I was brought up with that adage, but it was not correctly explained to me.
I was told that, "What you see wrong with others, is wrong about yourself." That's not entirely true, and it created a great deal of distress, because I wondered how bad I was since I saw other people as bad.
What the statement really means, is that there is a reason you see or feel things in others. For instance, if you see someone as unsafe, it means you know the difference between safety and danger. <-- that's the reflection.
If you see someone as insincere, it means the reflection is that you can sense insincerity because you are, in fact, sincere.
Had I understood this growing up, I would not have developed the paranoia I have now. I thought that the reason I didn't trust people was because I was untrustworthy, not because I knew the difference between the truth and a lie.
Research indicates a person’s own behavior is the primary driver of how they treat others
Diana Yates, University of Illinois News Bureau
August 9, 2023
What is selfish behavior? Selfishness is defined as the tendency to act in one's own interests without regard for the impact on others. New research shows that a person’s own behavior is the primary driver of how they treat others during brief, zero-sum-game competitions.
Generous people tend to reward generous behavior and selfish individuals often punish generosity and reward selfishness – even when it costs them personally. The study found that an individual’s own generous or selfish deeds carry more weight than the attitudes and behaviors of others.
The findings are reported in the journal Cognitive Science.
Previous research into this arena of human behavior suggested that social norms are the primary factor guiding a person’s decision-making in competitive scenarios, said Paul Bogdan, a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who led the research in the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology with U. of I. psychology professors Florin Dolcos and Sanda Dolcos.
“The prevailing view before this study was that individuals form expectations based on what they view as typical. If everyone around me is selfish, then I’m going to learn to accept selfishness and behave accordingly,” Bogdan said. “But we show that your judgments of other people’s behavior really depend on how you behave yourself.”
To test the factors that guide expectations and drive behavior, the researchers conducted a series of experiments involving the Ultimatum Game, which captures how an individual responds to offers from another player proposing to split a pot of money with them. The game requires the proposer to suggest how much each person receives of a $10 pot. The receiver must decide whether to agree to that split or reject it. If the offer is rejected, neither participant receives any money. Rejection can be seen as a form of punishment, even though it costs both players, the researchers said.
Some people tend to be generous – or at least fair – when offering another person a portion of a $10 reward. Others try to take as much of the money as they can, offering lopsided splits that benefit themselves at the expense of their competitors.
When on the receiving end of an offer, generous people tend to accept only generous offers, while selfish people are happy with selfish offers – even though the other player’s selfishness hurts them financially, the researchers found. Having the players switch between receiving and proposing offers allowed the team to explore the relationship between a player’s selfish or generous behavior and their evaluation of other players’ offers.
Further experiments showed that generous and selfish individuals tend to trust others who behave as they themselves do, regardless of the economic outcome.
Sanda Dolcos, Florin Dolcos, Paul Bodgan
In a new study, psychology professors Sanda Dolcos, left, and Florin Dolcos and PhD candidate Paul Bogdan, right, tracked how a person’s own behavior guides their expectations of others’ generosity or selfishness. Photo by L. Brian Stauffer
“Participants will gain more money with a generous person. But a selfish person will prefer to play with someone who behaves as they do,” Bogdan said. “People really like others who are similar to themselves – to a shocking degree.”
The team also evaluated data from a previous cross-cultural study that found that individuals sometimes punish others for their selfishness or for their generosity in a collaborative game involving resource sharing. They found that, when deciding whether and how much to punish others, participants were guided primarily by their own behavior and less by the pressure to conform. People who behaved generously tended to punish selfishness and people who put their own welfare first were much more likely to punish generosity – even in situations where one approach was more common than the other.
Cultural norms toward self-interest or generosity do influence people, as other studies have found, Florin Dolcos said. “But we are not only observers. This study is showing that we filter information about the world through our own view.”
Those individuals whose behavior switched from generous to selfish over time were more likely to punish generosity and reward selfishness – but only after their own behavior changed, the team found.
This helps explain the phenomenon of social alignment, for better and for worse, Florin Dolcos said.
“You may have groups of selfish people who are more accepting of other selfish people, and in order to be part of that group, newcomers might display the same behavior,” he said.
Ultimately, the study finds that a person’s own generous or selfish nature drives their behavior in many arenas of life, Sanda Dolcos said.
“This is not just about decision-making,” she said. “It has practical relevance to many types of social interactions and social evaluations.”
The paper “Social expectations are primarily rooted in reciprocity: An investigation of fairness, cooperation and trustworthiness” is available online. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.13326
las.illinois.edu/news/2023-08-09/study-finds-people-expec...
Kristin Dombek’s The Selfishness of Others begins by introducing three characters. There’s Allison, one of the stars of the MTV reality show My Super Sweet 16. (For her birthday parade, she had an entire block of Atlanta shut down, right in front of a hospital: “They can just go around,” she said.) Next is Tucker Max, the celebrity whose books and blog posts about “getting wasted and sportfucking” made him a hero among pickup artists and men’s rights activists. And then there’s Anders Breivik, who in 2011 killed eight people with a car bomb in Oslo, Norway. After that he proceeded to a summer camp, where he shot and killed 69 more. He would later claim that the massacres were a publicity stunt to promote his 1,500-page manifesto deriding women and Muslims, and featuring pictures of him smiling in Knights Templar costumes.
If Breivik seems like an outlier—if the comparison with two relatively harmless figures strikes you as inappropriate—this is intentional. The millennial girl, the bad boyfriend and the murderer: these examples show the range of our obsession with narcissism, a condition we hear more and more about these days. As I write this, half the country is still reeling from the election of a self-absorbed millionaire (or billionaire, if you believe his boasts) whom numerous psychologists have publicly diagnosed as a narcissist, while an online petition calling for the Republican Party to #DiagnoseTrump has been signed by more than thirty-four thousand people.
●
Dombek begins her own discussion on more personal ground, in the depths of what she calls the “narcisphere.” This is her name for the metastasizing cluster of blogs, vlogs, quizzes and support communities where self-described victims gather to vent and to discuss the behaviors of their personal “narcs.” One website, the Web of Narcissism, quotes Dracula and employs gothic castle imagery; its members, who call themselves “keyboard faeries,” trade recommendations for media about sociopaths and vampires, enacting narc victimhood as a kind of underground subculture. There are many gurus and experts to choose from in the narcisphere, but their advice converges on one remedy. If you find yourself in a relationship with a narcissist—and you’ll know because they withhold care and attention, or do not seem to love you with the exclusivity you deserve—then the only solution is to cut your losses and get out. The narcissist can’t love you, and trying to change them is hopeless.
More good mail days.
Join our newsletter.
Enter your email
What’s tempting about this “narciscript,” as Dombek calls it, is that it reduces a complicated situation (e.g. the average relationship) to a heavily weighted binary: Do I continue to extend an imprudent empathy, or do I go cold, the way the other person already has, in the interest of self-preservation? Clearly the latter course is the more “reasonable” one, but the moment I take it—go cold, withdraw, run—is the moment I can no longer safely distinguish my own behavior from the narcissist’s. “The script confirms itself,” Dombek writes, “and the diagnosis and the treatment confound the evidence, until it gets harder and harder” to tell whether the word “narcissism” describes anything at all. This is why, although The Selfishness of Others seems to promise an investigation of whether the “narcissism epidemic” (as it’s been called) is real, the book’s main interest derives from Dombek’s posing of another question, which may shed new light on our urge to #DiagnoseTrump: What’s at stake for us in believing it’s real?
Dombek spent the first part of her life in Philadelphia, where she was homeschooled by her parents, affable-sounding Jesus freaks she has described as “long-haired, corduroy-bell-bottom-wearing, antiauthoritarian biblical literalists.” When she was nine her father became sick with a host of terminal illnesses and the family relocated to a farm in Indiana, where they lived with a lot of animals: according to one (maybe exaggerated) list there were “not only about twenty cats and a dog but a half-dozen roving demented geese and two ornery pebble-shit-spewing goats and a couple dozen hysterical hens and a tyrannical rooster named Sam.” After high school Dombek attended Calvin College, a Christian Reformed (Calvinist) school in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She struggled to fit in with her classmates, who had all grown up in suburban neighborhoods.
As a freshman, Dombek became politically active in the fight against abortion—a practice she firmly believed, along with her parents and many of her friends, was not only murder but “a first step toward state-run infanticide and euthanasia.” At church, she and her friends watched films of months-old fetuses writhing in pain as machines snapped them apart piece by piece. Dombek would describe the anguish of those images in “The Two Cultures of Life,” her first article for n+1. The essay, which questions the left-right polarization of the abortion issue, contains many of the hallmarks of Dombek’s later work, including her attempt to bypass either-or distinctions by staging an argument on the page, and her insistence on directing empathy toward those viewed as incapable of returning it: the fetus, the animal, the murderer.
The year after she participated in an anti-abortion march in Washington, Dombek picked up smoking, started wearing flannel shirts and declared herself a Marxist. But her belief in the importance of empathizing across ideological and (sometimes) ontological boundaries seems to have persisted, along with her certainty that, as she writes in “Two Cultures,” “if it looks like violence, it is.” Studying literature at NYU after college, she emphasized persuading secular people to be “more empathetic toward fundamentalists, even those who conduct or support great atrocities.”
Her dissertation, “Shopping for the End of the World,” drew on the ideas of the French philosopher and literary theorist René Girard, who was interested in the ways that violence emerged within social groups. We tend to believe that violence happens when people don’t understand or empathize with one another, but Girard argued, first in Deceit, Desire and the Novel (1961) and later in Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (1978), that violence springs just as much from our similarities. We think we desire things and people for their particular qualities but, according to Girard, this is an illusion; all desire is in fact an anticipatory mirroring of the desires of those closest to us. When two people reach for the same thing at once, as they inevitably will, not only are they hurled into conflict over that thing; they are also each confronted with disturbing evidence that their deepest self is little more than a bundle of imitations. Desperate to destroy the bearer of such news, they lash out. And because violence, too, is mimetic, it spreads through the community in a destructive, destabilizing feedback loop.
According to Girard, archaic societies developed a stopgap solution to these epidemics of violence: ritual sacrifice. (All archaic societies, apparently: Girard, who based his theory of sacrifice on readings of ancient myth rather than direct anthropological research, had a tendency to overgeneralize.) The group would select a scapegoat, and the selection itself was a significant decision. Ideally, this being—whether human or some other animal—would be enough like the sacrificers themselves that destroying or exiling it would satisfy the sacrificer’s need to banish what they hated. At the same time, the scapegoat needed to seem, or be made to seem, inhuman enough that everyone could safely assume its suffering didn’t count. This is how Dombek’s interest in empathy led her to the narcissist—the being our society often claims is too inhuman to truly suffer.
●
The first people labeled as narcissists, writes Dombek, were almost exclusively homosexuals and women—and for Freud, who popularized the label, almost all homosexuals and women were narcissists. Beautiful women, whom Freud compared to children and “certain animals which seem not to concern themselves about us,” seemed to him particularly resistant to therapeutic practice. To his mind, the abnormal resistance of these women to transference—love, basically—appeared to be a form of regression. Normal, healthy people start their lives in a similar state of selfish inaccessibility, he reasoned, but eventually they develop the capacity for empathy and love. The narcissist, for Freud, was the person who maintained or returned to this self-sufficiency.
Dombek’s criticism of the Freudian interpretation of narcissism draws from another work by Girard. In “Narcissism: The Freudian Myth Demystified by Proust,” Girard compared famous passages from Proust about desire with Freud’s vaguely moralistic theorizing about his desirable patients. The similarities he found were remarkable. Both writers ascribed to their subjects an inhuman autonomy, compared them with children and animals (specifically birds: large birds of prey in Freud’s case, seagulls in Proust’s) and marveled at their indifference to those around them. The difference was that Proust didn’t present his descriptions as true. “There is no such thing as a ‘real,’ objective narcissism for Proust,” Girard writes. It’s just less painful, when someone doesn’t feel about us like we feel about them, to believe that they’re incapable of feeling. What looks to us like someone else’s arrogance, according to this line of thinking, is actually our own inverted neediness.
Are these insights about scapegoating and the “narcissistic illusion” (as Girard called it) helpful for understanding today’s “narcissism epidemic”? The claims that narcissism is becoming pathological on the level of the whole culture go back to at least the late Seventies, when Tom Wolfe’s “The Me Decade” (1976) made the cover of New York and Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (1979) became a national best seller. Despite Lasch’s scattershot approach—sections of The Culture of Narcissism are devoted to confessional writing, radical feminism and the use of AstroTurf in sports stadiums—his account of “the new narcissist” remained firmly rooted in psychoanalytic theory: specifically, Dombek notes, that of the analyst Otto Kernberg, who modified Freud’s theory by positing that the narcissist’s performance of self-sufficiency was part of a compensatory attempt to fill a vacuum of self-esteem.
Just as Lasch’s book was published, however, scientists began laying the tracks for the more clinical conception of the condition that prevails today. In 1979, two social psychologists developed the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a diagnostic tool that reduced Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) (enshrined in the DSM as a mental illness the next year) to a set of eight traits. The NPI is a forced-choice questionnaire, which means it tests NPD by asking subjects to select from a pair of statements—for example, “Sometimes I tell good stories” or “Everybody likes to hear my stories”—which it then correlates with clinical traits. The resulting numerical score tells you next to nothing about the individual test-taker, not even whether that person is a narcissist (as the test’s creators readily admitted). But it makes it much easier to generalize across large sample sizes.
In The Narcissism Epidemic (2009), for instance, social psychologists Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell reported that because millennials scored 30 percent higher on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory than ever before, they were likely the most self-involved generation in history. But according to Dombek, the study the book was based on actually only revealed that a “slight majority of students in 2006 answered, on average, one or two more questions in the narcissistic direction than did those in 1986.” Another caveat is that the people surveyed in Twenge and Campbell’s study were not just American college students, but specifically freshman psychology students, participating for course credit—an extremely common form of institutional bias which leads Dombek to wonder how much of popularly reported psychology research “would actually be more accurately framed as an understanding of what young psychology students think about themselves.”
The problem is not just that studies using this paradigm mask an absence of real knowledge, although this is a problem. More importantly, by presenting narcissism as a diagnosis with a firm empirical basis, journalists quoting social psychologists often make it seem like a condition someone—or a whole group of someones—just has. For researchers, this sort of shorthand isn’t unusual—it’s more or less how most sciences operate. But such research isn’t usually being cited to support sweeping claims about entire generations, nor to explain the behavior of our bad boyfriends, murderers and politicians.
The fact that, with narcissism in particular, such labeling has become so common, speaks in favor of Dombek’s suggestion that the narcissist occupies a special place in our social imagination. For Twenge and Campbell, millennials play the role of arch-villains in a story about our culture’s refusal to grow up. More recently, many of us have focused our attention on a villain who looks very different from a millennial, though we call him the same name we call them. Which makes one wonder what, in this case, is the underlying sameness that we’re hoping to purge.
●
It’s likely no coincidence that one of the terms commentators often used to describe the political divides of the 2016 presidential campaign—“echo chamber”—brings us back to the Narcissus myth. In the classic version told by Ovid, Echo is a girl who, cursed by Hera, can only speak by repeating what others say. In the forest she falls hopelessly in love with the beautiful Narcissus, but when she tries to embrace him he reacts fearfully, with angry words that she can only whisper back to him; then he abandons her in favor of his own reflection in a dark pool. In our modern rendition, the term “chamber” is supposed to suggest a technological component to the problem, but the basic story is the same. In it, the other side of whatever divide—political, ideological, demographic—is imagined as being trapped in the echo chamber of “fake news” and bias-confirming feeds, while “we” play the role of Echo. We want to communicate, but the only way our voices can carry across the divide is if we repeat exactly what the other side already believes.
Although the echo chamber presents itself as a tragic picture, Dombek can help us recognize its flattering features. We, the ones who bemoan being stuck in our chamber, desire earnestly to reach out to the other side. They, the narcissistic ones, refuse to leave their chamber and meet us halfway. Scapegoating has always been an effective political tactic, and it is one Trump used ably, if offensively, during his campaign. But if Dombek and Girard are right that narcissism functions today largely as a scapegoating technique—a way of justifying coldness, maybe even violence, toward the one we label the narcissist—then it is Trump himself who emerges as the ultimate scapegoat, precisely because of his refusal to even pretend to care what his adversaries think.
Other presidents, after they win, at least make a show of reaching out; our narcissist-in-chief just keeps insulting us. Apparently he’s seeing other people, or maybe he really does just look into his reflection on TV all day. In any case, a better pretext for our own unapologetic anger and hatred could hardly be imagined. Which is a relief, in a way: all that empathizing can be exhausting.
The problem is only that, as Girard believed, scapegoating could never truly end violence or hatred, because, in misidentifying its source, it leads us to think we’re outside the dynamics responsible for it. “The moment you begin to find that the other lacks empathy—when you find him inhuman,” Dombek writes, “is a moment when you can’t feel empathy, either.” We say, this is how things are, fair or not. Either they burn, or we do.
"I'm re-reading the letters you wrote me
I'm searching and scanning for answers
In every line
For some kind of sign"
Yes, this is a quote from the same song as the one which inspired the photo where I was burning a letter (it wasn't an actual private letter though, rather a public post addressed to me, but I think it counts, and anyway I was going to burn that particular "letter" because it's author was wrong on so many levels and doing it I was basically replying "go to hell"). The song is about a different story, but I think that one quote fits here as well, because, yeah, I do know really well what it's like to re-reading letters like a detective trying to solve a mystery when this is almost the only option left to connect (and this option IS NOT ENOUGH to understand the reason behind, because it's one-sided).
Those tiles I bought for a totally different photo a long time ago (and still didn't take it). Never have I ever thought I will use it in a context like this but I think it's much better than an original intention. Though it's still sad...
Shared for 241 Challenges "Macro - Guess what it is?" challenge. (Club 241 members, please guess in the Challenges group - thanks. I will reveal the answer once it has been correctly guessed or after a few days!). #63 'How small can you go?' for 116 pictures in 2016.
talk, it's only talk
arguments, agreements, advice, answers,
ariculate announcements
it's only talk
talk, it's only talk
babble, burble, banter, bicker bicker
brouhaha, boulderdash, ballyhoo
it's only talk, back talk
talk talk talk, its only talk
comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
chatter, chit-chat, chit-chat, chit-chat,
conversation, contradiction, criticism
it's only talk, cheap talk
talk, talk, it's only talk
debates, discussions
these are words with a D this time
dialogue, dualogue, diatribe,
dissention, declamation
double talk, double talk
talk, talk, it's all talk
too much talk
small talk
talk that trash
expressions, editorials, expugnations,
exclamations, enfadulations
it's all talk
elephant talk, elephant talk, elephant talk
What's she doing to have Paul, Sean and Lipjin look so amused?
Answer to be unveiled in the next picture.
Often when I see people pitch X-men reboots, they do one of two things: A) Do the original Uncanny X-men roster of Cyclops, Jean Grey, Beast, Angel and Iceman or B) Just plugs in every popular X-men right off the bat. I don't like either of these. The uncanny X-men roster is kinda bland, while having every popular X-man in one movie would obviously not work.
My ideal line up would comprise of Cyclops, Jean Grey, Nightcrawler, Storm and Angel. Professor X and Beast would also be present but as mentors to the team, not actual X-men.
ANSWER:
As you can see, there was another baby calve (female?) right next to the larger male (?) and was reaching around with her trunk and feeding him.
The two calves are inseparable and absolutely adorable as the played together. The two young mothers hovered near them at all times, never more than 10-15 feet away.
Female elephants (cows) help each look after each other’s calves. Babysitting other females calves is important for elephant development; young females learn how to look after the young, and the calves are shown how it’s done. The survival rate of a calf greatly increases when more females are present and willing to play that role.
Before going back to KDON, Don had a few spare dollars he thought worth spending to learn about his future from the "All knowing, all seeing Mama Rat." Booley and Maddy -- never ones to pass up a captive, paying audience -- thought the new couples might like an extra activity to continue growing acquainted with each other. Rat struck the jackpot with gullible Don Buzzle....
Don: [clears voice concernedly after Mama Rat's initial premonition] "Well, that was a bit vague...what do you mean you see darkness looming?"
Rat's daughter Katie quickly speaks up: "Mama Rat says she can study the future more closely---for two more dollars."
Don: "I've got $3 left: How many tarot cards will that buy me?"
Cloudy (Paul Simon)
"...Cloudy
My thoughts are scattered and they're cloudy
They have no borders, no boundaries
They echo and they swell
From Tolstoy to Tinker Bell
Down from Berkeley to Carmel
Got some pictures in my pocket and a lot of time to kill
Hey sunshine
I haven't seen you in a long time
Why don't you show your face and bend my mind?
These clouds stick to the sky
Like a floating question, why?
And they linger there to die
They don't know where they are going
And, my friend, neither do I
Cloudy..."
Provocative clouds over the newly reopened Memorial Union Terrace, UW-Madison
"It is where I find the answers
to all that which I seek
It is where I'm most happy
and content to stop and think
It is where I find peace with myself".
(By Bonnie Dues)